The End of the Line - directed and filmed by Rupert Murray
1. Title, director and release year?
The End of the Line came out in 2009 and was directed and filmed by Rupert Murray, who is a film director working in London who's worked with Channel Four's Cutting Edge and the BBC Network.
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
There was the underlying argument of conservation verses preservation, however both of which would have been against the over-fishing of the cod industry. The central argument is that there is a sustainable way to harvest resources, and when that isn't thought of, carried out, or enforced then this is an example of just some of the consequences. There needs to be a paradigm shift in how we view resources and how our society uses them, and this would completely change the system of capitalism.
3. How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?
The film gave examples throughout the fishing industry where environmental issues and in many cases the law was being ignored. It then went on and showed multiple viewpoints, such as the fisherman and others that rely on the fishing industry for jobs, the scientists who are understand the facts about why this is unsustainable, had them explain how this screws with the ecosystems and how populations of other species are affected and how in turn that has other consequences... there were many angles covered.
This film has an emotional appeal to anyone who can sympathize with those affected in the video: anyone who is connected with the fishing industry, scientists whose advise is ignored, people who fish as a hobby,
4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out? Political?- China Legal? Economic? Technological? Media and Informational? Organizational? Educational? Behavioral? Cultural? Ecological?
This film definitely drew on the economic issues, because the fishing industry supports a lot of jobs, so all they can think about is bringing in more fish without seeing or believing the bigger picture that in the end over fishing will wipe out their fishing jobs permanently.
The cultural aspects of this are that the area is dependent on the fishing industry and it has gotten into their culture, that's what they see themselves as, it's what's in the menu in the restaurants, they've become very dependent on it because it's throughout their culture, which only makes them more vulnerable to and ecological problem. However, the community around the industry doesn't see the problem for what it is, they see it only from an industry perspective as a fight with the fish, which takes the attention away from the real issues at hand. Another cultural issue that tied into this is the dominating narrative that the ocean is so big that it's "inexhaustible", which isn't true, like everything else it has its limits.
Without the innovative fishing technology of today the fishing industry might not have even ran into this problem because it was the technology that enabled them to fish at such a fast rate that surpassed the fish's ability to sustain its population. Then even after the fish population decreases, the industry still tries to go after it and there was the issues of "too much capacity going after too few fish".
There is political issues going on here because the ministry/government meet with the scientists to get an estimate as to how much the industry should be allowed to fish for the season. However, the ministry doesn't take the scientists' advise, raising their estimate, and then the industry goes ahead and fishes even more than what the government said they were allowed to do.
Legal/informational/economic issues were all tied in one when it was realized that the communist government in China was over quoting the amount of fish they caught, which is illegal because it messes with decisions based on this information, and was done for economic reasons tied to gas prices.
This is ultimately an educational issue, because even if that specific fish was fished to extinction, another species of fish would take its place on the market starting this all over again. The real issue is needing the education to shift the paradigm of thinking that is involved with how we extract our resources, be it non-living, plant, or animal.
5. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
In general I liked how the film covered many perspectives surrounding this issue so you are forced into systems thinking even if they don't right out say it. And they did a pretty good job at doing that, covering most angles.
6. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
A part of the movie is shot in a way as to make the man who actually wants to do the right thing look almost shady, with simply the film technique and the music, I feel like this is a mistake that we make when filming these sort of movies because we're giving the audience the wrong idea, the wrong feeling about the essentially good guys in these situations.
The credentials of the people who were in the film were vague such as a professor's name and the university they are associated with, in my opinion wasn't enough. Just because they are a professor doesn't mean that topic was within their area of expertise, might not be the most informed, but that they could just be who was willing to be part of the movie and say that specific information that they wanted to include.
7. What audiences does the film best address? Why?
I have a hard time understanding which audience this film best addresses.... But, I do think that it would be good showing this film to people who are in school or training about to enter industry where issues like this come up. Not just to environmental science students, but also the industry side like managerial, advertising, and culinary students.
8. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
It is interesting how the same situation of how the ministry puts the cap on the number of fish allowed to be caught, scientists recommendation is super low, ministry put it above that, then the fishing industry actually catches even more than that. It seems we are in the same situation with carbon and other GHG emissions, so I wonder how could we use situations like this to learn from to apply to other issues such as GHG emissions.
9. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
The "End of the Line" title has double meaning; it is the end of the line for the fish, but also end of the line for how long we can go on like this until we are ruining the oceans. The title alone suggests that action should be taken, decisions should be made on where to go from here, what our real options are for continuing into the future.
The language and metaphors used in film such as this "fight" with the fish, like we are winning, is worded as if it was a war, and we are very militaristic about it. The language around how we talk about these issues and our view needs to shift, we need to change our thinking and the system in which our economy is set up to be over harvesters, this is a base problem with capitalism.
We could source fish from sustainable sources, where populations are actually tracked and limits are followed.
However, I've never felt that consumer choice would have enough of a collective effect on the practices done by industry, I feel that there should also be economic and legal incentives that come from a change in policy and in legislation.
Endangered species are not allowed to go on menus, such as Chilean sea bass and blue fin tuna, and this should be monitored and enforced by food retail inspectors, like a health inspector.
The narrator asked the restaurant manager "will people still buy it if its labeled endangered species?" and I have to laugh because OF COURSE they would! It's what a lot of the elite live for! In fact it might even increase the demand for it by making it more conspicuous!
Create land and ocean areas where we can literally turn back the clock, through marine reserves where commercial fishing is completely banned.
These areas actually work and show benefits from it, the reefs and fish population increase, move back, and repopulate - but it would take an immense amount of marine reserves and money for them to be able to make the difference that is needed - ways to fund this would be to have the fishing industry actually pay into it like a tax - marine reserves now account for 0.6% of the world's oceans.
10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)
The end of this film was very different than other documentaries because it actually made you question how future generations are going to look on what we allowed happen and how will this affect how they view us? Will they want to hold us accountable later on? Will they be pissed that we didn't take action earlier on? The ending was actually thought provoking rather than just a visual shot of a dead bird that gives you a nasty feeling in your stomach, like a bad taste in your mouth, while also making you laugh at the ridiculous filming technique they choose for the ending. The ending note of the film can have a powerful affect on what a person's view is of the whole film, which may be unfair, but is usually true. Like reading The Grapes of Wrath and liking it right up until the very ending of the book and then completely hating it for the rest of your life.
Sustainability Problems
The End of the Line - directed and filmed by Rupert Murray
1. Title, director and release year?
- The End of the Line came out in 2009 and was directed and filmed by Rupert Murray, who is a film director working in London who's worked with Channel Four's Cutting Edge and the BBC Network.
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?- There was the underlying argument of conservation verses preservation, however both of which would have been against the over-fishing of the cod industry. The central argument is that there is a sustainable way to harvest resources, and when that isn't thought of, carried out, or enforced then this is an example of just some of the consequences. There needs to be a paradigm shift in how we view resources and how our society uses them, and this would completely change the system of capitalism.
3. How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?- The film gave examples throughout the fishing industry where environmental issues and in many cases the law was being ignored. It then went on and showed multiple viewpoints, such as the fisherman and others that rely on the fishing industry for jobs, the scientists who are understand the facts about why this is unsustainable, had them explain how this screws with the ecosystems and how populations of other species are affected and how in turn that has other consequences... there were many angles covered.
- This film has an emotional appeal to anyone who can sympathize with those affected in the video: anyone who is connected with the fishing industry, scientists whose advise is ignored, people who fish as a hobby,
4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out? Political?- China Legal? Economic? Technological? Media and Informational? Organizational? Educational? Behavioral? Cultural? Ecological?- This film definitely drew on the economic issues, because the fishing industry supports a lot of jobs, so all they can think about is bringing in more fish without seeing or believing the bigger picture that in the end over fishing will wipe out their fishing jobs permanently.
- The cultural aspects of this are that the area is dependent on the fishing industry and it has gotten into their culture, that's what they see themselves as, it's what's in the menu in the restaurants, they've become very dependent on it because it's throughout their culture, which only makes them more vulnerable to and ecological problem. However, the community around the industry doesn't see the problem for what it is, they see it only from an industry perspective as a fight with the fish, which takes the attention away from the real issues at hand. Another cultural issue that tied into this is the dominating narrative that the ocean is so big that it's "inexhaustible", which isn't true, like everything else it has its limits.
- Without the innovative fishing technology of today the fishing industry might not have even ran into this problem because it was the technology that enabled them to fish at such a fast rate that surpassed the fish's ability to sustain its population. Then even after the fish population decreases, the industry still tries to go after it and there was the issues of "too much capacity going after too few fish".
- There is political issues going on here because the ministry/government meet with the scientists to get an estimate as to how much the industry should be allowed to fish for the season. However, the ministry doesn't take the scientists' advise, raising their estimate, and then the industry goes ahead and fishes even more than what the government said they were allowed to do.
- Legal/informational/economic issues were all tied in one when it was realized that the communist government in China was over quoting the amount of fish they caught, which is illegal because it messes with decisions based on this information, and was done for economic reasons tied to gas prices.
- This is ultimately an educational issue, because even if that specific fish was fished to extinction, another species of fish would take its place on the market starting this all over again. The real issue is needing the education to shift the paradigm of thinking that is involved with how we extract our resources, be it non-living, plant, or animal.
5. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?- In general I liked how the film covered many perspectives surrounding this issue so you are forced into systems thinking even if they don't right out say it. And they did a pretty good job at doing that, covering most angles.
6. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?- A part of the movie is shot in a way as to make the man who actually wants to do the right thing look almost shady, with simply the film technique and the music, I feel like this is a mistake that we make when filming these sort of movies because we're giving the audience the wrong idea, the wrong feeling about the essentially good guys in these situations.
- The credentials of the people who were in the film were vague such as a professor's name and the university they are associated with, in my opinion wasn't enough. Just because they are a professor doesn't mean that topic was within their area of expertise, might not be the most informed, but that they could just be who was willing to be part of the movie and say that specific information that they wanted to include.
7. What audiences does the film best address? Why?- I have a hard time understanding which audience this film best addresses.... But, I do think that it would be good showing this film to people who are in school or training about to enter industry where issues like this come up. Not just to environmental science students, but also the industry side like managerial, advertising, and culinary students.
8. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?- It is interesting how the same situation of how the ministry puts the cap on the number of fish allowed to be caught, scientists recommendation is super low, ministry put it above that, then the fishing industry actually catches even more than that. It seems we are in the same situation with carbon and other GHG emissions, so I wonder how could we use situations like this to learn from to apply to other issues such as GHG emissions.
9. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.- The "End of the Line" title has double meaning; it is the end of the line for the fish, but also end of the line for how long we can go on like this until we are ruining the oceans. The title alone suggests that action should be taken, decisions should be made on where to go from here, what our real options are for continuing into the future.
- The language and metaphors used in film such as this "fight" with the fish, like we are winning, is worded as if it was a war, and we are very militaristic about it. The language around how we talk about these issues and our view needs to shift, we need to change our thinking and the system in which our economy is set up to be over harvesters, this is a base problem with capitalism.
- We could source fish from sustainable sources, where populations are actually tracked and limits are followed.
- However, I've never felt that consumer choice would have enough of a collective effect on the practices done by industry, I feel that there should also be economic and legal incentives that come from a change in policy and in legislation.
- Endangered species are not allowed to go on menus, such as Chilean sea bass and blue fin tuna, and this should be monitored and enforced by food retail inspectors, like a health inspector.
- The narrator asked the restaurant manager "will people still buy it if its labeled endangered species?" and I have to laugh because OF COURSE they would! It's what a lot of the elite live for! In fact it might even increase the demand for it by making it more conspicuous!
- Create land and ocean areas where we can literally turn back the clock, through marine reserves where commercial fishing is completely banned.
- These areas actually work and show benefits from it, the reefs and fish population increase, move back, and repopulate - but it would take an immense amount of marine reserves and money for them to be able to make the difference that is needed - ways to fund this would be to have the fishing industry actually pay into it like a tax - marine reserves now account for 0.6% of the world's oceans.
10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)